Nah, Scaly's got a point. Before the Sri Lanka series last summer after Collingwood's retirement opened up a spot, cricinfo had Bopara nailed on as his replacement and called Morgan's selection a shock, despite Morgan quite obviously being the next in line.

Indeed. The Bopara stuff goes way beyond just this past week when apparently a 65* was the most newsworthy item to mention in 4 Division 2 games. And a few days ago when a century in a one-sided 40 over game. I realise some of the non-Brits might not be aware of it, but most of us who support England are familiar with the way Cricinfo promotes Bopara.

It is the way of the world that cricket boards will be affected by Cricinfo. It may not be a direct effect but it will filter through eventually. What effect they have is the important thing. If they have an influence on selection and that sort of thing it isn't good.

I've long found the writing on cricinfo almost uniformly tedious and irritating, which surprises me given that generally I spend, by choice, a disproportionate amount of my time reading about the game, so I am genuinely grateful to Scaly for explaining to me so succinctly what the problem is - I can but wholeheartedly agree

Scaly is spot on about the Bopara thing. That example Furball (I think) posted about Morgan being a 'surprise' inclusion sums it up, although that is also indicative of how cricinfo overstate their own importance I suspect.

Funny thing is, a lot of people here bemoan the media and their radical/rubbish views - yet a lot of the stuff on here is just as outrageous, if not worse (because they know it's not going to be printed on a website/paper).

But we here don't have any pretenses to be influencing the decisions of our own teams selectors and lets be equally honest, there's a few on here who arguably know more about and have mos certainly seen more cricket than a good many of the writers on cricinfo.

But no one has the platform to influence selectors on here, so it's a moot point. I can say as part of any NZ-based thread there's definitely a barrow-pushing of players from certain districts, which if in print would be classed as influencing selectors.

It's partly bias, partly that these writers/whoever have a much more intimate knowledge of certain players and can push their case better, whilst not realising the extent of talent of others.

Certainly there are some knowledgeable posters and some would better equipped than people in media outlets, that I completely agree. The trouble is, anyone with a writing degree can work in the industry. You don't have to prove you know your BCCIs from your LBWs and your RPOs, not in some jobs anyway. And sure, there's some posters on here who are completely clueless, but that's their right to give their views. Not so enamoured with it when those sorts are in print, as you say. There's one particular Cricinfo writer from the No.2 ranked nation in the world that is absolutely diabolical.

But no one has the platform to influence selectors on here, so it's a moot point. I can say as part of any NZ-based thread there's definitely a barrow-pushing of players from certain districts, which if in print would be classed as influencing selectors.

It's partly bias, partly that these writers/whoever have a much more intimate knowledge of certain players and can push their case better, whilst not realising the extent of talent of others.

Certainly there are some knowledgeable posters and some would better equipped than people in media outlets, that I completely agree. The trouble is, anyone with a writing degree can work in the industry. You don't have to prove you know your BCCIs from your LBWs and your RPOs, not in some jobs anyway. And sure, there's some posters on here who are completely clueless, but that's their right to give their views. Not so enamoured with it when those sorts are in print, as you say. There's one particular Cricinfo writer from the No.2 ranked nation in the world that is absolutely diabolical.

I think I've read a few articles by a female writer from SA, is that the one?

But no one has the platform to influence selectors on here, so it's a moot point. I can say as part of any NZ-based thread there's definitely a barrow-pushing of players from certain districts, which if in print would be classed as influencing selectors.

Sinclair is God and you know it.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.

I don't agree or disagree about Cricinfo's obsession with Bopara, but isn't the fact that he wasn't selected ahead of Morgan in that test match that you blokes keep talking about a suggestion that Cricinfo actually doesn't have much influence at all?

And since this thread is about media influence on team selection and cricket policies, and not just bad reporting, I think that example goes against the whole contention of this thread.

You've got to realise when reading this stuff that most of it is reporting based on 'sources' rather than opinion. Cricinfo's biggest crime is that it's sources are nowhere near as well in the loop as the press journo's, so they more often than not have incorrect mail. The newspapers etc have proven sources over a number of years who are always pretty close to the mark.

So realistically, cricinfo's news stories are based on weak/out of the loop sources with bad mail rather than their writers opinions. They don't have any journalistic credibility as such compared to many.